Vice's suicide fashion pictures could be deadly

To children in distress, these shockingly tasteless images look like a menu. Outrage is a tactic – let's hope this one backfires

'The Samaritans have guidelines covering both journalistic and creative depictions of suicide, and they are very clear: avoid glamorising suicide and avoid giving details of the methods.' Photograph: Niall Carson/PA

How far should a brand go to stay edgy, even if it means their readers end up dead? Vice magazine is aiming to find out.

The youth culture magazine has published a fashion spread of models recreating the suicides of famous female writers. There is Sylvia Plath poised in front of the gas oven, wearing an on-trend Suno dress and Virginia Woolf wading into the water in a gothic Christian Siriano coat and vintage frock.

On one level, we shouldn't be surprised by the raging tastelessness on display here: this is what Vice does. Its brand is all about shocking and busting taboos; its schtick is mixing serious reportage from some of the most hellish places on earth with pointless videos of topless models and headlines such as "Why are the British obsessed with sheds?"

But underneath the gonzo self-image it is so keen to promote, Vice is a giant old-school corporation. According to the New Yorker's recent feature on the brand, it has 35 offices in 18 countries and a million subscribers to its YouTube channel. It was valued at $200m in 2011 and its CEO, Shane Smith, says its goal is to be "the largest network for young people in the world". Underneath its yellow skinny jeans, Vice is wearing a suit.

This is the paradox of the new media age: some of the most wild, crazy-looking sites are being run like traditional businesses. Reddit, home of violently misogynistic forums called things such as Beating Women, is owned by Advanced Publications, the same parent company as Condé Nast, publisher of GQ and Vogue. It's just that neither side likes to talk about it.

So what is a slick corporation to do when it wants to appeal to young people? Why, outrage public decency, of course. And that is hard on the internet, where people swear like they breathe and you can't move for erect nipples. So companies like Vice have to poke at other taboos, like sexual violence, drug use and suicide.

The worst thing is, it works. Creating a Twitter storm every so often is exactly what Vice wants. It doesn't have aspirations to be taken seriously, so it doesn't need to apologise if anyone is offended. It doesn't have the kind of editors who are likely to be hauled in front of a select committee to explain themselves. And although it publishes a British edition, it doesn't feel like part of the fabric of the British media. There will be no Leveson-style inquiry into its actions; it can easily tell the PCC to bugger off.

But let's not be in any doubt about what Vice has done. The Samaritans have guidelines covering both journalistic and creative depictions of suicide, and they are very clear: avoid glamorising suicide and avoid giving details of the methods. It is widely accepted that following these rules reduces copycat suicides. If you live in London, you'll regularly hear announcements about passenger incidents and delays due to a person under a train, but you won't find them routinely written up in the Evening Standard. That's for a very good reason: the Samaritans quote studies from Vienna and Toronto where voluntary restrictions on reporting subway suicides reduced their occurrence by 75%.

Similarly, the inclusion of a particular suicide method in a popular television show or prominent media report has been shown to increase suicide attempts by that method. Every year in England and Wales, about 24,000 young people between the age of 10 and 19 attempt suicide. What will children in that kind of distress see when they look at those Vice pictures? They will see a menu. Using famous women makes it worse, because vulnerable people can fixate on a favourite writer and identify with them.

As a journalist, covering suicide is always hard because there is a fine line between raising awareness of a vital public health issue and contributing to a spectacle that could harm vulnerable people. Which of those two was the feminist website Jezebel doing when it decided to republish Vice's pictures, alongside outraged commentary? And have the thousands of tweets on the subject, not to mention this article, simply told Vice that it has found a tender spot in our collective consciousness, which it can jab to great effect?

I don't have the answer to that and it is easy to find things to be outraged about these days. But this one is worth being angered by, because tonight, there might be one less Vice reader in the world.

• This article was amended on 18 June 2013 to remove a reference to a particular method of suicide

• If you have been affected by the issues raised in this article, for information and support visit the Samaritans website or call 08457 909090